Evaluation of patient compliance with the use of scrotal cooling devices.
Compliance
male infertility
scrotal cooling
sperm parameters
Journal
F&S reports
ISSN: 2666-3341
Titre abrégé: F S Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101766618
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
18
12
2020
revised:
16
06
2021
accepted:
24
06
2021
entrez:
23
9
2021
pubmed:
24
9
2021
medline:
24
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the compliance of infertile men with the use of scrotal cooling devices. As a secondary objective, sperm parameters, deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation, and hormone profiles were examined. This exploratory study on scrotal cooling provided scrotal cooling devices to men with primary infertility and abnormal semen parameters. Feedback on the devices after their use was gathered in the form of a questionnaire, and semen parameters were examined after device use. Single center infertility clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Patients with primary infertility and abnormal semen parameters were prospectively evaluated before and after scrotal cooling. One of two scrotal cooling devices (Underdog or Snowballs) was used, on the basis of patient preference. Questionnaires were completed by patients on compliance with device use and concerns about and recommendations for improving the cooling devices. Baseline deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation index, sperm parameters, and hormones were measured at the initial visit (t = 0) and at subsequent visits (t = 4-12 weeks). Statistical comparison of values before and after scrotal cooling was performed. Forty patients were enrolled in the study, and the questionnaire was completed by 65.0% (n = 26). Most respondents (76.9%) used scrotal cooling less than the recommended duration. Respondents believed that the devices were uncomfortable (31.5%), impeded work (21.0%), and lost cooling rapidly (14.3%). Significant increases in sperm motility and vitality (from 25.4 % to 29.0% and from 64.8% to 71.7%, respectively) were demonstrated after scrotal cooling. Most patients were not compliant with the recommended use of the scrotal cooling devices because of issues of comfort, convenience, and concealability. Further work on improving scrotal cooling devices is necessary to enhance their potential as a therapeutic tool for men with abnormal sperm parameters and infertility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34553153
doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2021.06.007
pii: S2666-3341(21)00075-1
pmc: PMC8441567
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
289-295Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Références
Reproduction. 2001 Apr;121(4):595-603
pubmed: 11277880
J Reprod Fertil. 1998 Nov;114(2):179-94
pubmed: 10070346
Int J Androl. 2005 Apr;28(2):93-8
pubmed: 15811070
Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct;90(4):1103-8
pubmed: 18022168
Hum Reprod. 2015 May;30(5):1006-13
pubmed: 25779699
Urology. 1982 Jun;19(6):636-40
pubmed: 7090114
Fertil Steril. 2006 Dec;86(6):1659-63
pubmed: 17007855
Hum Reprod. 2001 Sep;16(9):1922-30
pubmed: 11527899
J Urol. 1986 May;135(5):944-7
pubmed: 3959246
Urol Clin North Am. 2020 May;47(2):165-174
pubmed: 32272988
J Urol. 1989 Sep;142(3):743-5
pubmed: 2769853
Mol Reprod Dev. 2008 Jan;75(1):40-7
pubmed: 17474098
Lancet. 1980 Apr 26;1(8174):904-6
pubmed: 6103260
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Nov;5(6):1146-1151
pubmed: 29731401
Hum Reprod Update. 2010 May-Jun;16(3):231-45
pubmed: 19934213
Urology. 1997 Aug;50(2):257-9
pubmed: 9255298
BJU Int. 2007 May;99(5):1086-90
pubmed: 17346270
Hum Reprod Update. 1999 Sep-Oct;5(5):399-420
pubmed: 10582780
Urology. 1984 May;23(5):439-41
pubmed: 6372197
Fertil Steril. 1985 Apr;43(4):589-94
pubmed: 3987927
Appl Ergon. 2013 Sep;44(5):799-810
pubmed: 23453773
Fertil Steril. 1971 May;22(5):286-97
pubmed: 5574782
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013 Apr;30(4):487-95
pubmed: 23359247
J Urol. 1984 Sep;132(3):469-70
pubmed: 6471178
Clin Transl Allergy. 2012 Feb 02;2(1):3
pubmed: 22409884
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 May;33(4):338-42
pubmed: 23654310
JAMA. 1968 Apr 22;204(4):290-7
pubmed: 5694622
Int Braz J Urol. 2007 Jan-Feb;33(1):50-6; discussion 56-7
pubmed: 17335598